Marleau for Redden?

On 2007-07-25 06:42:36 -0700, "Duane" <letskeepit RemoveThis @posting4now.com> said:

> Spector reported this morning that Ottawa had a deal for Redden that he
> rejected invoking his no-trade clause, and that there were rumors the suitor
> was Edmonton or San Jose, in a deal for Marleau.
>
> Redden didn't have a great year last year, and is a UFA next summer.
> Marleau was having a great year until he got injured, and his playoff series
> vs. Detroit was one of his worst. He is also a UFA next summer. So this
> deal makes some sense. Its still hard for me to believe that Wilson is
> trying so hard to trade Marleau when Joe all but told the team he was
> leaving money on the table to sign his road roomie.
>
> Anyway, this makes me think maybe it was Wilson who was trying to get Jovo
> from Phoenix, who also said he wouldn't be waiving his no-trade clause. I
> haven't read of this rumor anywhere, but it also makes some sense.
>
> It certainly seems like the Sharks have decided they can't afford to sign
> all their RFAs next summer, and Marleau, and a stud defenseman. Again, this
> isn't necessarily a cap issue, but the policy of a team that can't afford to
> go all the way to the cap, like the big market teams. Otherwise, with such
> a glaring need, why not sign a UFA stud and not give up an asset in return?

We, too, would like to trade one of our underperformers even up for
another team's young star!
 >> Stay informed about: Marleau for Redden? 

On Jul 25, 7:14 pm, MS <n... DeleteThis @attbi.com> wrote:
> On 2007-07-25 06:42:36 -0700, "Duane" <letskee... DeleteThis @posting4now.com> said:
>
>
>
> > Spector reported this morning that Ottawa had a deal for Redden that he
> > rejected invoking his no-trade clause, and that there were rumors the suitor
> > was Edmonton or San Jose, in a deal for Marleau.
>
> > Redden didn't have a great year last year, and is a UFA next summer.
> > Marleau was having a great year until he got injured, and his playoff series
> > vs. Detroit was one of his worst. He is also a UFA next summer. So this
> > deal makes some sense. Its still hard for me to believe that Wilson is
> > trying so hard to trade Marleau when Joe all but told the team he was
> > leaving money on the table to sign his road roomie.
>
> > Anyway, this makes me think maybe it was Wilson who was trying to get Jovo
> > from Phoenix, who also said he wouldn't be waiving his no-trade clause. I
> > haven't read of this rumor anywhere, but it also makes some sense.
>
> > It certainly seems like the Sharks have decided they can't afford to sign
> > all their RFAs next summer, and Marleau, and a stud defenseman. Again, this
> > isn't necessarily a cap issue, but the policy of a team that can't afford to
> > go all the way to the cap, like the big market teams. Otherwise, with such
> > a glaring need, why not sign a UFA stud and not give up an asset in return?
>
> We, too, would like to trade one of our underperformers even up for
> another team's young star!

I have never thought of Marleau as an underperformer, despite his
meltdown agints the 'Wings.

If it is true that Thornton left money on the table in order to resign
Paddy, then it would be foolish not to do it.

Consider this cautionary tale of an NFL example of the same thing. As
Joe Thornton is the best NHL player, so is Tom Brady the best NFL
player. Brady left money on the table with his extension on the
understanding that his go-to guy Deion Branch would be re signed. The
N.E. Patriots foolishly and spitefully broke that promise. John Madden
observed and commented on Brady's listlessness during a MNF broadcast
and so did everyone else. Betrayed by the organization, it didn't
require an M.D. in Psychiatry to have diagnosed Brady as clinically
depressed. Nevertheless, he pulled himself together, and even without
a potent receiving corps managed to advance the Pats to the AFC title
game, which he controlled until the 4th quarter in spite of his
mistakes. The Pats defense melted against the furious comeback of the
Colts under Peyton Manning and lost.

If the Sharks deal Marleau, Thornton will have the same "opportunity"
to overcome depression and advance the Sharks to the third round. But
is that something we really want to gamble on? Paddy is our all-time
goal scorer and points leader. I've said it before and I'll say it
again. It is insane to trade Paddy, even regardless of Thorntons
"feelings." He is still young and big and strong and fast, and one
helluva hockey player richly deserving of a sizable, long-term
contract extension.
 >> Stay informed about: Marleau for Redden? 

What I meant was, the East Coast press is trying to unload Redden and
want to take one of our stars - Marleau. If they want to unload Redden,
how about settling for one of our underperformers like Goc?

On 2007-07-26 09:55:55 -0700, Happy Phantom <beckerb RemoveThis @my-deja.com> said:

> On Jul 25, 7:14 pm, MS <n... RemoveThis @attbi.com> wrote:
>> On 2007-07-25 06:42:36 -0700, "Duane" <letskee... RemoveThis @posting4now.com> said:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Spector reported this morning that Ottawa had a deal for Redden that he
>>> rejected invoking his no-trade clause, and that there were rumors the suitor
>>> was Edmonton or San Jose, in a deal for Marleau.
>>
>>> Redden didn't have a great year last year, and is a UFA next summer.
>>> Marleau was having a great year until he got injured, and his playoff series
>>> vs. Detroit was one of his worst. He is also a UFA next summer. So this
>>> deal makes some sense. Its still hard for me to believe that Wilson is
>>> trying so hard to trade Marleau when Joe all but told the team he was
>>> leaving money on the table to sign his road roomie.
>>
>>> Anyway, this makes me think maybe it was Wilson who was trying to get Jovo
>>> from Phoenix, who also said he wouldn't be waiving his no-trade clause. I
>>> haven't read of this rumor anywhere, but it also makes some sense.
>>
>>> It certainly seems like the Sharks have decided they can't afford to sign
>>> all their RFAs next summer, and Marleau, and a stud defenseman. Again, this
>>> isn't necessarily a cap issue, but the policy of a team that can't afford to
>>> go all the way to the cap, like the big market teams. Otherwise, with such
>>> a glaring need, why not sign a UFA stud and not give up an asset in return?
>>
>> We, too, would like to trade one of our underperformers even up for
>> another team's young star!
>
> I have never thought of Marleau as an underperformer, despite his
> meltdown agints the 'Wings.
>
> If it is true that Thornton left money on the table in order to resign
> Paddy, then it would be foolish not to do it.
>
> Consider this cautionary tale of an NFL example of the same thing. As
> Joe Thornton is the best NHL player, so is Tom Brady the best NFL
> player. Brady left money on the table with his extension on the
> understanding that his go-to guy Deion Branch would be re signed. The
> N.E. Patriots foolishly and spitefully broke that promise. John Madden
> observed and commented on Brady's listlessness during a MNF broadcast
> and so did everyone else. Betrayed by the organization, it didn't
> require an M.D. in Psychiatry to have diagnosed Brady as clinically
> depressed. Nevertheless, he pulled himself together, and even without
> a potent receiving corps managed to advance the Pats to the AFC title
> game, which he controlled until the 4th quarter in spite of his
> mistakes. The Pats defense melted against the furious comeback of the
> Colts under Peyton Manning and lost.
>
> If the Sharks deal Marleau, Thornton will have the same "opportunity"
> to overcome depression and advance the Sharks to the third round. But
> is that something we really want to gamble on? Paddy is our all-time
> goal scorer and points leader. I've said it before and I'll say it
> again. It is insane to trade Paddy, even regardless of Thorntons
> "feelings." He is still young and big and strong and fast, and one
> helluva hockey player richly deserving of a sizable, long-term
> contract extension.
 >> Stay informed about: Marleau for Redden? 

On Jul 29, 2:21 pm, MS <n....DeleteThis@attbi.com> wrote:
> What I meant was, the East Coast press is trying to unload Redden and
> want to take one of our stars - Marleau. If they want to unload Redden,
> how about settling for one of our underperformers like Goc?
>
> On 2007-07-26 09:55:55 -0700, Happy Phantom <beck....DeleteThis@my-deja.com> said:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 25, 7:14 pm, MS <n....DeleteThis@attbi.com> wrote:
> >> On 2007-07-25 06:42:36 -0700, "Duane" <letskee....DeleteThis@posting4now.com> said:
>
> >>> Spector reported this morning that Ottawa had a deal for Redden that he
> >>> rejected invoking his no-trade clause, and that there were rumors the suitor
> >>> was Edmonton or San Jose, in a deal for Marleau.
>
> >>> Redden didn't have a great year last year, and is a UFA next summer.
> >>> Marleau was having a great year until he got injured, and his playoff series
> >>> vs. Detroit was one of his worst. He is also a UFA next summer. So this
> >>> deal makes some sense. Its still hard for me to believe that Wilson is
> >>> trying so hard to trade Marleau when Joe all but told the team he was
> >>> leaving money on the table to sign his road roomie.
>
> >>> Anyway, this makes me think maybe it was Wilson who was trying to get Jovo
> >>> from Phoenix, who also said he wouldn't be waiving his no-trade clause. I
> >>> haven't read of this rumor anywhere, but it also makes some sense.
>
> >>> It certainly seems like the Sharks have decided they can't afford to sign
> >>> all their RFAs next summer, and Marleau, and a stud defenseman. Again, this
> >>> isn't necessarily a cap issue, but the policy of a team that can't afford to
> >>> go all the way to the cap, like the big market teams. Otherwise, with such
> >>> a glaring need, why not sign a UFA stud and not give up an asset in return?
>
> >> We, too, would like to trade one of our underperformers even up for
> >> another team's young star!
>
> > I have never thought of Marleau as an underperformer, despite his
> > meltdown agints the 'Wings.
>
> > If it is true that Thornton left money on the table in order to resign
> > Paddy, then it would be foolish not to do it.
>
> > Consider this cautionary tale of an NFL example of the same thing. As
> > Joe Thornton is the best NHL player, so is Tom Brady the best NFL
> > player. Brady left money on the table with his extension on the
> > understanding that his go-to guy Deion Branch would be re signed. The
> > N.E. Patriots foolishly and spitefully broke that promise. John Madden
> > observed and commented on Brady's listlessness during a MNF broadcast
> > and so did everyone else. Betrayed by the organization, it didn't
> > require an M.D. in Psychiatry to have diagnosed Brady as clinically
> > depressed. Nevertheless, he pulled himself together, and even without
> > a potent receiving corps managed to advance the Pats to the AFC title
> > game, which he controlled until the 4th quarter in spite of his
> > mistakes. The Pats defense melted against the furious comeback of the
> > Colts under Peyton Manning and lost.
>
> > If the Sharks deal Marleau, Thornton will have the same "opportunity"
> > to overcome depression and advance the Sharks to the third round. But
> > is that something we really want to gamble on? Paddy is our all-time
> > goal scorer and points leader. I've said it before and I'll say it
> > again. It is insane to trade Paddy, even regardless of Thorntons
> > "feelings." He is still young and big and strong and fast, and one
> > helluva hockey player richly deserving of a sizable, long-term
> > contract extension.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Here, I'll cause a ruckus. (This post is in reply to all the
dicussion, so far, not one individual post, BTW.)

If I were DW and could swing a "major deal" to acquire a top
defenseman, and maybe a few picks/players thrown in, for Marleau, I'd
be very, very tempted. It makes an enormous amount of sense to me.

First, and foremost, you can't make omelettes without breaking eggs.
Marleau has been an excellent player and done well, relatively, but
the fact of the matter is that he's not Joe Sakic, Steve Yzerman, or
some other transcendental player, who can lead the franchise to the
Cup. The teams deficiencies have been notably apparent--and
remarkably similar-- for three staright years, not one disappointment
this past year, so there's no reason to suggest that some form of the
status quo will yield a new result. What's the old expression about a
definition of insanity, "doing the same thing over and over again and
expecting a different result?"

There's no reason to get emotionally attached to Marleau because he'd
likely be gone come end of his contract anyway, so dealing him now,
especially if they could get a stud in return, is smart on more than
one front. Clearly, this franchise will NEVER win a Cup with a
"servicable" defense, rather than a potent one. So, deal away, if you
can get the right defenseman and/or combination with forwards, too.
(As I said in an earlier thread, I'd have been happy to take Semin for
Marleau, in terms of offensive threat, especially with a Thornton to
match him with.)

If DW (we) just get all sentimental and sit on our hands, we'll be
having this same discussion next year and wondering which of San
Jose's stars will be walking, while we're getting even less. So, go
ahead, mix it up. Make next year unknown and exciting, even if we
fail again.

I'd rather fail in a new way than the same old one.
 >> Stay informed about: Marleau for Redden? 

"tack" <thetacker.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1185738132.546769.274140@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 29, 2:21 pm, MS <n....TakeThisOut@attbi.com> wrote:
>> What I meant was, the East Coast press is trying to unload Redden and
>> want to take one of our stars - Marleau. If they want to unload Redden,
>> how about settling for one of our underperformers like Goc?
>>
>> On 2007-07-26 09:55:55 -0700, Happy Phantom <beck....TakeThisOut@my-deja.com> said:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jul 25, 7:14 pm, MS <n....TakeThisOut@attbi.com> wrote:
>> >> On 2007-07-25 06:42:36 -0700, "Duane" <letskee....TakeThisOut@posting4now.com>
>> >> said:
>>
>> >>> Spector reported this morning that Ottawa had a deal for Redden that
>> >>> he
>> >>> rejected invoking his no-trade clause, and that there were rumors the
>> >>> suitor
>> >>> was Edmonton or San Jose, in a deal for Marleau.
>>
>> >>> Redden didn't have a great year last year, and is a UFA next summer.
>> >>> Marleau was having a great year until he got injured, and his playoff
>> >>> series
>> >>> vs. Detroit was one of his worst. He is also a UFA next summer. So
>> >>> this
>> >>> deal makes some sense. Its still hard for me to believe that Wilson
>> >>> is
>> >>> trying so hard to trade Marleau when Joe all but told the team he was
>> >>> leaving money on the table to sign his road roomie.
>>
>> >>> Anyway, this makes me think maybe it was Wilson who was trying to get
>> >>> Jovo
>> >>> from Phoenix, who also said he wouldn't be waiving his no-trade
>> >>> clause. I
>> >>> haven't read of this rumor anywhere, but it also makes some sense.
>>
>> >>> It certainly seems like the Sharks have decided they can't afford to
>> >>> sign
>> >>> all their RFAs next summer, and Marleau, and a stud defenseman.
>> >>> Again, this
>> >>> isn't necessarily a cap issue, but the policy of a team that can't
>> >>> afford to
>> >>> go all the way to the cap, like the big market teams. Otherwise,
>> >>> with such
>> >>> a glaring need, why not sign a UFA stud and not give up an asset in
>> >>> return?
>>
>> >> We, too, would like to trade one of our underperformers even up for
>> >> another team's young star!
>>
>> > I have never thought of Marleau as an underperformer, despite his
>> > meltdown agints the 'Wings.
>>
>> > If it is true that Thornton left money on the table in order to resign
>> > Paddy, then it would be foolish not to do it.
>>
>> > Consider this cautionary tale of an NFL example of the same thing. As
>> > Joe Thornton is the best NHL player, so is Tom Brady the best NFL
>> > player. Brady left money on the table with his extension on the
>> > understanding that his go-to guy Deion Branch would be re signed. The
>> > N.E. Patriots foolishly and spitefully broke that promise. John Madden
>> > observed and commented on Brady's listlessness during a MNF broadcast
>> > and so did everyone else. Betrayed by the organization, it didn't
>> > require an M.D. in Psychiatry to have diagnosed Brady as clinically
>> > depressed. Nevertheless, he pulled himself together, and even without
>> > a potent receiving corps managed to advance the Pats to the AFC title
>> > game, which he controlled until the 4th quarter in spite of his
>> > mistakes. The Pats defense melted against the furious comeback of the
>> > Colts under Peyton Manning and lost.
>>
>> > If the Sharks deal Marleau, Thornton will have the same "opportunity"
>> > to overcome depression and advance the Sharks to the third round. But
>> > is that something we really want to gamble on? Paddy is our all-time
>> > goal scorer and points leader. I've said it before and I'll say it
>> > again. It is insane to trade Paddy, even regardless of Thorntons
>> > "feelings." He is still young and big and strong and fast, and one
>> > helluva hockey player richly deserving of a sizable, long-term
>> > contract extension.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Here, I'll cause a ruckus. (This post is in reply to all the
> dicussion, so far, not one individual post, BTW.)
>
> If I were DW and could swing a "major deal" to acquire a top
> defenseman, and maybe a few picks/players thrown in, for Marleau, I'd
> be very, very tempted. It makes an enormous amount of sense to me.
>
> First, and foremost, you can't make omelettes without breaking eggs.
> Marleau has been an excellent player and done well, relatively, but
> the fact of the matter is that he's not Joe Sakic, Steve Yzerman, or
> some other transcendental player, who can lead the franchise to the
> Cup. The teams deficiencies have been notably apparent--and
> remarkably similar-- for three staright years, not one disappointment
> this past year, so there's no reason to suggest that some form of the
> status quo will yield a new result. What's the old expression about a
> definition of insanity, "doing the same thing over and over again and
> expecting a different result?"
>
> There's no reason to get emotionally attached to Marleau because he'd
> likely be gone come end of his contract anyway, so dealing him now,
> especially if they could get a stud in return, is smart on more than
> one front. Clearly, this franchise will NEVER win a Cup with a
> "servicable" defense, rather than a potent one. So, deal away, if you
> can get the right defenseman and/or combination with forwards, too.
> (As I said in an earlier thread, I'd have been happy to take Semin for
> Marleau, in terms of offensive threat, especially with a Thornton to
> match him with.)
>
> If DW (we) just get all sentimental and sit on our hands, we'll be
> having this same discussion next year and wondering which of San
> Jose's stars will be walking, while we're getting even less. So, go
> ahead, mix it up. Make next year unknown and exciting, even if we
> fail again.
>
> I'd rather fail in a new way than the same old one.
>

I agree. I also think Marleau should not be Captain. Sometimes you have
to get in someone's face and he is just too quiet.

If there were only another Ricci on the horizon.
 >> Stay informed about: Marleau for Redden?